The Sources of Diodorus Siculus, Book 1

THE SOURCES OF DIODORUS SICULUS, BOOK 1
Author(s): CHARLES E. MUNTZ

Source: The Classical Quarterly , DECEMBER 2011, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 2 (DECEMBER
2011), pp. 574-594
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301555
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301555?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly
This content downloaded from

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Classical Quarterly 61 .2 574-594 (201 1) Printed in Great Britain 574
doi: 1 0. 1 0 1 7/S000983 88 1 1 000206
THE SOURCES OF DIODORUS SICULUS,

BOOK 1*
It is a paradox of ancient history that one of the most important sources fo

structing the events of the ancient world has also been one of the least un
by modern scholars. For over a hundred years, Diodorus Siculus' Bibliothe
studied in an attempt to discover what earlier sources he relied on a
to reconstruct those sources, the classic example of this Quellenforschun
E. Schwartz's article on Diodorus for Pauly-Wissowa. Along the way, Dio
himself as an author fared less well, little attention being paid to his own co
attitudes, contributions and role in creating the work that is published un
name. Meanwhile, scorn was heaped upon him by scholars, happy to denigr
as 'mechanically abbreviating one source and interpolating into it passage
other works ... with such incompetence that it is in general possible to iso
main source and discuss it sensibly'.1
However, over the last twenty-five years or so Diodorus has enjoyed a
renaissance. Scholars have begun moving away from the narrow focus on p
related to Quellenforschung and the often contemptuous attitude towards
himself, and have instead begun considering Diodorus' own role in the c
tion and shaping of his work. For example, Catherine Rubincam, in a se
articles, shows that Diodorus imposed his own overall structure on the Bib
and actually took more care in his internal citations than many other anc
torians.2 Kenneth Sacks, in a major study of Diodorus, argues that the Bib
is 'a document substantially reflecting the intellectual and political atti
the late Hellenistic period'.3 Perhaps the most extreme reaction against th
of Quellenforschung has been Peter Green's commentary on Books 11-1
In it he refers to older theories of Diodorus' sources, and in particular Di
reliance on a single source for long stretches of his own work, as 'an el
house of cards'.4 In keeping with these trends, some scholars working o
aspects of the ancient world have begun to take greater notice of Diodoru
outside of reconstructing his sources. For instance, Liv Yarrow makes e
* I would like to thank Mary T. Boatwright, Diskin Clay, Peter Burian, Kent Rigsby
B. Levine, Georgia Machemer and the anonymous CQ referee for many helpful and in
comments on earlier versions of this article, and John Wilkins for seeing it to publica
precision and care.
1 O. Murray, review of Diodorus Siculus, Book I: A Commentary , by Anne Burton,
(1975), 214-15, at 215.
2 C. Rubincam, 'The organization and composition of Diodorus' Bibliotheke ', EMC 31
313-28; 'Cross-references in the Bibliotheke Historike of Diodoros', Phoenix 43 (198
'Did Diodorus Siculus take over cross references in his sources?', AJPh 119 (1998),
'How many books did Diodorus Siculus originally intend to write?', CQ 48 (1998),
3 K. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, NJ, 1990), 5. Cf. P. St
review of Diodorus Siculus and the First Century by Kenneth Sacks, BMCR (1
02.06.1991.
4 P. Green, Diodorus Siculus Books 11-12.37.1 : Greek History, 480-431 b.c. - The Alternative
Version (Austin, TX, 2006).

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
THE SOURCES OF DIODORUS SICULUS, BOOK 1 575
use of Diodorus in her study on Greek attitudes towards Rome in th

the late Republic.5 Finally, a new commentary on Diodorus is being u
by Italian scholars.6
In spite of these, there are still scholars who adhere to the older s
continue to treat Diodorus as simply a window into the content and
of his presumptive sources.7 The most prominent scholar in this vei
R Stylianou, who referred to Diodorus as 'a mere epitomizer and an in
one at that' in his major commentary on Book 15 of the Bibliotheke , and
treated Diodorus as a stand-in for the presumptive source of that book
Quellenforschung can still be a useful type of scholarship, provided
with care and not dogmatically, and can provide us with a better fou
which both to evaluate Diodorus' own accomplishments and to under
much of his sources can be reconstructed. However, most of these bas
tions about the given source(s) for a particular book of Diodorus hav
critically re-examined for some time. This is especially true of the earl
the Bibliotheke. The present article is a first step in this process, a re
of the evidence for the sources for the first book of Diodorus, which
have traditionally held was derived from the Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus
( FGrH 264). It is my contention that scholars have been far too sang
how extensively Diodorus used Hecataeus, and that the actual evidenc
usage is in fact exceedingly thin.
As is so often the case with ancient writers, little is known about H
He was from either Teos or Abdera and was evidently already promine
the reign of Alexander the Great. Afterwards, he was associated with
(T7 = Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.183). He seems to have visited Spar
Plutarch, Lycurgus 20.3), and travelled through Egypt to research a major
was probably called On the Egyptians. He also wrote a work On the Hy
and works on Homer and Hesiod (T1 = Suda , s.v. ' EKaralos ). Non
works survive. As an associate of one of the key players in the initial w
Diadochoi, Hecataeus has the potential to illuminate the intellectual a
history of the early Hellenistic period. He also stands as an important rep
of the now-lost accounts written under the successors about the regions t
Greek control.9 First, however, we need to understand how much of
Diodorus did or did not preserve.
G.J. Schneider first made the attribution of Book 1 to Hecataeus' On the
Egyptians in his 1880 dissertation, De Diodori Fontibus. In an 1885 article, E.
Schwartz worked out in detail how the few fragments of Hecataeus could sho
that virtually all of Book 1 derived from his work.10 With the exception of chapte
32-41, which H. Leopoldi attributed to Agatharchides in 1892, Schwartz repeate
5 L. M. Yarrow, Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provincial Perspectives on Rom

Rule (Oxford, 2006).
6 The first two volumes have recently appeared: D. Ambaglio, Diodoro Siculo, Bibliotec
storica Libro XIII: Commento storico (Milan, 2008) and F. Landucci, Diodoro Siculo, Bibliot
storica Libro XVIII: Commento storico (Milan, 2008).
7 See n. 13 below for examples relating to Book 1.
8 P. Stylianou, A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus 15 (Oxford, 1998), 49. Cf
P. Green, review of A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 75, by P.J. Stylianou
BMCR (1999), 10.11.1991.
v E.g. Megasthenes on India, Berossus on Babylon and Manetho on Egypt.
10 E. Schwartz, 'Hekataeos von Teos', RhM 40 (1885), 223-62.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
576 CHARLES E. MUNTZ
this view in his classic Pauly-Wisso

accepted by F. Jacoby in his comment
is essentially Diodorus 1.10-31, 42-98,
Since this attribution, scholars have r
the equivalent of the lost work of He
reconstructing the thought and philos
published in 1970, Oswyn Murray bec
formal case that Diodorus' Book 1 is d
Book 1 as an 'epitome' of 'most, perh
his prominence, Murray's article is reg
proof of Diodorus' dependence on Heca
be examined and that is what this arti
At the outset, it should be noted th
Book 1 as an epitome of Hecataeus on
proem of Book 1, chapters 1-6, which
is now widely agreed to be the work
said, the work of 'a small man with p
a sort of philosophical account of the
subject of much debate and, though p
to derive from a more eclectic variety
ing with the sources and flooding of
Agatharchides of Cnidus ( c . 215-145) or
There has been one notable exceptio
Hecataeus. Anne Burton in her comme
appear to contradict one another, and
to be more closely related to other He
concluded that Diodorus 'undoubtedly
while at the same time incorporating m
11 To give just one example, note P.M. Frase

496-505. See n. 13 for further examples.
12 O. Murray, 'Hecataeus of Abdera and p
144.
13 Scholarship relying on Murray (n. 12)
chic ideas', in F.W. Walbank and A.E. Astin
77, n. 46; S. Burstein, 'Hecataeus of Abdera
Civilization 51 (1992), 45-9, at 45, n. 1; D
theories', in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (edd
Political Thought (Cambridge, 2000), 457-76
thought', in K. Algra et al. (edd.), The Cambr
2005), 739-70, at 743, n. 12. J. Dillery, 'Hec
interpretatio graeca', Historia 47 (1998), 25
able to modify the notion that Diodorus foll
his history, but not to abandon it.' Dillery d
has in mind.
14 A.D. Nock, 'Posidonius', JRS 49 (1959), 1-15, at 5.
15 On 1.7-8, see the exhaustive analyses in W. Spoerri, Spathellenistische Berichte iiber Welt,
Kultur, und Gotter (Basel, 1959) and T. Cole, Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology
(Cleveland, OH, 1967). Spoerri contends that nothing in these chapters is incompatible with
widely held beliefs in Diodorus' own time, while Cole argues that they derive ultimately from
Democritus, via Hecataeus, but with considerable reworking by Diodorus.
16 A. Burton, Diodorus Siculus Book I: A Commentary (Leiden, 1972), 20-5.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
into the framework of his own construction'.17 Burton's argument, wh

always clearly made, has not met with much acceptance, and indeed the
a number of scholars has been simply to dismiss it.18 Murray himself
that Burton did not consider the 'more sophisticated' arguments - pres
own - that Hecataeus is the sole source for nearly all of Book l.19
There are four reasons, according to Murray, for supposing the bul
1 to be an 'epitome' of Hecataeus. First, all the fragments from Hecat
'can be fitted easily into Diodorus' narrative'. Second, Diodorus' narra
chronologically to the late fourth century. Third, the ethnography of Eg
same type of structure as Hecataeus' ethnographies of the Jews and Hy
Finally, the account of Diodorus' Book 1 is a unified one, with an
consistent tone and a number of details that recur or are echoed at var
in the book.20
As is obvious from Murray's first reason, any identification of He
Abdera as Diodorus' source for Book 1 must be based on the close equ
between the fragments that can be securely attributed to Hecataeus'
and the narrative of Diodorus. There are only six of these fragments,
sible seventh, of which two are from Diogenes Laertius (F1 and F3),
Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (F4 and F5) and two from Diodorus h
and F6). The possible seventh fragment (F19) is of uncertain origin.
Diodorus fragments is from Book 1 (F2), the other from Book 40 (F6
ethnography of the Jews, and needs to be considered separately. Hecat
Hyperboreans (F7-14) is somewhat better represented by lengthy fragm
Diodorus (2.47, F7) and Aelian (NA 11.1, F12) alongside some shorter q
found mainly in scholia. There are also three fragments (F 15-1 7) which
from a philosophical work. The remaining fragments are doubtful or u
Let us begin with the fragments derived from authors other than
Historical fragments must be approached with extreme care, which, a
reminds us, is often lacking in this type of analysis.22 In the case of the
of Hecataeus, the fragments are extremely short, allowing us to know
the scope, manner or quality of his work. Only long fragments prov
ably sure guidance for drawing real conclusions about an author, and n
legitimate fragments of Hecataeus' Aegyptiaca outside Diodorus are m
brief quotations. It must be added that, if passages of Diodorus are g
identified as deriving from Hecataeus on the basis of these short frag
necessary that the fragments and the text correspond very closely.
F1 occurs in the prologue of Diogenes Laertius (who probably lived in
third century c.e.), where he briefly discusses the philosophy of the E
it pertains to the gods:
deovs 8' eivai rjAiov Kal oeArjvqv, tov (jl£v "Oaipiv, rrjv 8'9Ioiv KaAovfievrjv
re avrovs Sid re KavQapov Kal SpaKovros Kal UpaKos Kal aAAtov, <x>s (/>r)
17 Ibid., 34.
18 Note e.g. Walbank (n. 13), 77, n. 46, who mischaracterizes Burton as arguing that Diodorus
contains little from Hecataeus, and Burstein (n. 13), 45, n. 1.
19 Murray (n. 1), 215.
20 Murray (n. 12), 144-5. Jacoby notes the parallels in the margins of FGrH 264 F25.
21 On the doubtful fragments, see J.G. Gager Jr, 'Pseudo-Hecataeus again', ZNTW (1969),
130-9.
22 P.A. Brunt, 'On historical fragments and epitomes', CQ 30 (1980), 477-94.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
iv TTjL T(X)V &VOLK(X)V €7T LT O fJLTj L Kdl ' EK

<f>iXoGO<f>idS' KaTCLOKevaêiv Se ayaXf
fjLOp^rjv. tov Koofjiov yevrjrov Kdl <f>0d
Kdl rfji tovtcx)v Kpao€i ra irrl yrjs yiyve
yrjs €fJL7TL7TTOVOaV TTjV Kdl €771,8 Id fJ
rpoTrrjV dTTOTeXeioddi" ra re aAAa (fr
loropovoLV. edeodv 8e Kdl vofiovs vi rip h
ra evxprjOTd rcbv ^cjlcov deovs iS6^dO
Kdl dOTpoXoyidV Kdl dpiQfJLYJTlKYjV dV€Vp
(1.10-11)
The sun and the moon are gods bearing

they speak of the beetle, the dragon, the
says in his Epitome of Physical Doctrine
work On the Egyptian Philosophy. They
because they do not know the true form
created and perishable, and that it is sphe
by the mixing of these, events happen o
into the earth's shadow; that the soul bot
that rain happens because of movement in
give natural explanations, as Hecataeus a
laws on the subject of justice, which they
which are useful. They also say that they
So much for the invention of philosophy.
Murray and Jacoby equate the first ha

sage of Diodorus:
Tovs ovv Kdry AiyuTTTOV dvBpamovs t

Svo deovs ollSlovs re Kdl 7 Tpcorovs, rov r
TTjv 8e 9Ioiv ovofjbdodi, diro tlvos irvfiov
(1.11.1)
Therefore the men in Egypt in ancient times ... conceived that there were two gods who
were both eternal and first, the sun and the moon, whom they named Osiris and Isis
respectively, these names coming from the etymology of the words.
Diodorus goes on to explain that Osiris means 'many-eyed' (iroXvo^QaXiiov, 1.11.2)

while Isis means 'ancient' ( rraXaiav , 1.11.4). So the only overlap between these
two passages is that the Egyptians say that Osiris and Isis are the sun and the
moon. However, this was a popular and well-known belief in Hellenistic times,
and the association of Osiris with the sun is also seen in other phases of Egyptian
religion.23 The cults of Osiris and especially Isis were widespread throughout the
Greco-Roman world by the time Diodorus was writing, and there is no reason to
believe that he must have derived such a general belief from Hecataeus.24 Indeed,
23 Besides Diodorus, Diogenes Laertius, Hecataeus and Manetho, Plutarch De Is.et Os. 51-2,
372a-e; Apuleius, Met. 11.1, 24 and Eusebius, Praep. evang. 3.2.6 all contain this equation. See
also W. Spoerri (n. 15), 204-5; J.G. Griffiths (ed.), Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (Swansea,
1970), on De Is. et Os. 52 (pp. 496-7) for further citations.
24 On the popularity and spread of the cult of Isis during the classical period, see F. Dunand,
Isis, mere des dieux (Paris, 2000), esp. 41-62 and 65-80; and F. Solmsen, Isis Among the Greeks
and Romans (Cambridge, 1979), esp. 1-26. The most detailed literary description of Isis' cult
appears in Book 11 of Apuleius' Metamorphoses , on which see J.G. Griffiths, The Isis Book:

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
Diogenes Laertius attributes the same information to Manetho (see al

F83). He also includes information not present in Diodorus about the be
and hawk, which he indicates derives from Manetho and Hecataeus, wh
includes etymological information on the actual names of the gods. T
this passage of Diogenes has even less in common with Diodorus, who
belief to the Egyptians that the sun contributes fire and spirit, the m
and dryness, and both combine for air, and that the universe is compo
five elements (1.11.5-6). That the Egyptians investigate the natural caus
is a generalized statement that is too vague to equate with any passage i
And while Diodorus does say that the Egyptians credited Hermes with m
tions, laws on justice are not among them (1.16). Finally, the knowledg
Egyptians deified useful animals was common in the ancient world, and
this passage cannot be taken as proof that Diodorus' section on anim
(1.86-90) comes from Hecataeus.25 It is worth noting that both time
is cited in this passage he is paired with another author, Manetho or A
who provide the same information as Hecataeus, indicating that there wer
sources for Egyptian religion on which Diodorus could draw.
The next fragment (F3) also occurs in the prologue of Diogenes Lae
' EKaraios Si Kal yevy^Tovs tovs deovs etvai kclt' clvtovs. KXiapôs Si o
t<x)l IJepl naiSeias /cat tovs rvyLVOoo<l>iOTas airoyovovs elvai twv pbdywv (
Si Kal tovs ' lovSaiovs €K tovtojv eivai. tt pos tovtols KaTayivdiOKOvaiv '
Ta 7T€pl fiaycjv ypaijjavTes' {irj yap av els tov rfXiov fteXrj Sipîqv a/covr
els ttjv daXaooav ireSas Kadeivai , deovs vtto twv fjidytuv irapaSeSopievovs
ayaAjLtara clkotcos Kadaipeiv. (1-9)
But Hecataeus says that according to them [the Pers

Clearchus of Soli in his On Education also says th
from the Magi; and some say that the Jews come f
the Magi criticize Herodotus. They argue that Xerx
the sun nor cast fetters into the sea, since the sun
Magi. However, that the statues of the gods shoul
Jacoby does not equate this passage on the M

Murray, in his table linking Diodorus to Heca
chapter 11, the same chapter quoted above re
this chapter of Diodorus makes no mention wh
are they mentioned elsewhere in the remainde
Metamorphoses XI (Leiden, 1975). On Osiris, see B. M

God (Oxford, 2005), 102-19.
25 Other authors who discuss Egyptian beliefs abo
Herodotus 2.65-76 and Strabo 17.1. During Diodoru
explicitly says that the Egyptians deified animals becau
was a well-known Egyptian belief can be seen in the w
to it in both Greek and Latin sources, from the four
( Gorgias 482b), Isocrates ( Busiris 26-7) and a variety
7.299-300). In the 30s b.c.e. Octavian exploited these
against Antony and Cleopatra, as can be seen in var
8.698-700, Propertius 3.11.41, 53-4). On Greco-Rom
Egyptian animal veneration, see now S.J.K. Pearce, T
2007), 241-64.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
Book 1. Murray does not offer any ex

two passages, and there is no discernib
Fragment 4 comes from Plutarch's De
€TL TO)V 7ToXX(X)V VOfJLLÔVrCDV 18lOV TTCLp'

0 irapayovres r)jJL€is AfJLfJL cuva Xeyofiev,
oi€T at /cat rrjv KpviftLV vi to ravrrjs 8rjXo
(f>r]oi rovrcoL /cat rrpos aXXrjXovs rtoi
7TpooKaXa)vraL' TrpooKXrjTLKYjv yap eivai
iravri rov avrov vo/jllôvolv, ojs a</>avi ) /c
TrapaKaXovvres ifJLâvrj yeveodcu /cat
Most authorities still think that that Amun

of Zeus among the Egyptians, but Manetho t
is concealed' and that concealment is signifi
says that the Egyptians also use this express
word is one of address. Therefore they nam
one with everything, Amun, because they
upon him to become manifest and visible to
The passage in Diodorus pointed to as e
fxedepfjLrjvevofjLevojv 8' a vrcuv tlvols p>ev

I8iav iox^Kevau irpoorjyopiav, " 'HXlov re
tlvojv Afjifujova TTpooayopevopievov, irpos
/cat reXevraiov ' EpfjLrjv . (13.2)
Some of [the terrestrial gods'] names as transla

but others have their own individual names: H
who is named by some Ammon, and in addition
Hestia, and lastly, Hermes.
The only thing that this passage has in comm

Hecataeus is that both Diodorus and Hecataeu
Amun-Re, as the Egyptians called him, was a
He is perhaps the most fully documented E
was certainly well known to the Greeks.26 Bey
Egyptians use the name as a greeting, informa
from proving that Diodorus drew on Hecatae
that Diodorus was not drawing on Hecataeus
The fifth fragment is also from Plutarch's
olvov 8 ' ol fxev iv * HXlov ttoXel Oepairevovres

els ro lepov, (bs ov TTpoofjKov viTrjperas ttlvelv
01 8' olXXol XP(*)VTCLL ^ v oXiycx)L 84- iroXX
(f>LXoGO(j>ovvres /cat fxavdavovres /cat StSaa/c
/cat fjLerprjrdv €ttlvov Ik rcov lepcjv ypafjifiarc
26 For the Egyptian background to Ammon/ Amun-

in the New Kingdom (New York, 1995). Besides Dio
of Egyptian religion that discuss Ammon include He
cited by Plutarch, must also have included an accoun
the Greeks by way of the oracle of Amun-Re at Siwa
Great but considered a major oracle by the Greeks

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
rjpâvro 8e ttlvclv oltto WapLpnqrlxov trporepov 8' ovk einvov otvov ov8
d)S <f>lXiov deois olXX ' (bs alpha tcjv TToXepLrjoavTtov irore rols deots ...
ovv Ev8o£os iv rrji 8evripa i rrjs Tlepiohov XeyeaQai (/>r)cnv ovtcus vito
(6.353b-c)
The servants of the god in Heliopolis do not bring wine at all into the sanctuary, since
they believe it is improper that they should drink when their lord and king is watching;
however the other priests drink wine but only a little. They have many times of purification
without wine, and on these occasions they are examining, learning and teaching divine
matters. The kings also, being priests, drank an amount of wine according to the sacred
writings, as Hecataeus has related. They began to drink it from the time of Psammetichus,
but prior to this they did not drink wine or pour it as a libation pleasing to the gods,
but as the blood of those who had once made war against the gods ... Eudoxus in the
second book of his Description of the World says that these statements are made by the
priests.
The supposed equivalent in Diodorus is at 70.11-12:
Tpotjxiis 8J edos tfv avTois airaXais xPVaâL9 Kpea puiv fiooxcov koi xr)V(*)V p*ov<x)v
7TpOG(/)€pOfJL€VOVS} OLVOV 8£ TOLKTOV TL fJL€TpOV TTIVOVTCLS (JLT) 8wdp,€VOV TrXrjafJLOVTjV aKCLlpOV
rj fxedr^v TTepnroirjoai. KadoXov 8i ra irepl r-qv 8iairav ovtojs imrjpxe ov^pLerpcos
8iaT€TayfjL€va cjot€ 8ok€lv pbrj vo[xod€T7]v , aAAa rov apiorov tlov larpcjv avvrerax^vai
rrjs vyieias OTOxa-ôfievov.
It was custom for [the kings] to eat delicate foods, eating only veal and duck meat, and
drinking a fixed amount of wine that would not make them overly sated or drunk. And
in general their diet was drawn up with such care that it did not seem to be the work of
a lawmaker, but rather of the best of doctors focussed solely on the king's health.
All this passage has in common with Hecataeus as quoted by Plutarch is that
the kings drank a specified amount of wine. There the similarity ends. Diodorus
describes the measured drinking of wine as only part of the highly regulated
royal diet, and does not attribute it to any form of religious taboo. In Hecataeus,
according to Plutarch, the measured drinking of wine occurred in the context of
the king's duties as a priest, with no mention of the rest of the king's diet being
regulated as well.27 Again, the differences in these passages would seem to suggest
that, if anything, Diodorus was drawing on a source other than Hecataeus for this
section, and the mention of Eudoxus, a fourth-century author, by Plutarch shows
that there were other authors writing on the topic. Even if we accept that Diodorus
did draw on Hecataeus here, he seems to have reworked the earlier author for a
different purpose entirely.
One final passage should be considered before looking at Diodorus' sole citation
of Hecataeus in Book 1. This fragment (F19) occurs in both Porphyry, Quaest. Horn
II 9.383 and in Stephanus Byzantinus, s.v. AiocraoAK;, with only minor differences
between the two. Here is the text of Stephanus:
27 Griffiths (n. 23), ad loc. (pp. 275-6), notes that, contrary to what Plutarch says here, the
Egyptian kings certainly drank before the time of Psammetichus. He suggests that this belief is
aetiological in origin, deriving from the Egyptian understanding of the name Psammetichus as
meaning 'man of the mixing bowl'. If this is true, it further distinguishes the custom reported
by Plutarch from what Diodorus reports at 70.11-12.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
AloottoAls ' ... KTiOfia 'OoipcSos kcll "IolSo

' 'Kdrtov , otl <Tpio>fjLVpias Tpiox lA
fjivpiaSas €7TTaKOOLas , apovpcbv 8i ronov
iKaTOV TTvXaiS 8iaK€KOOfJL7]IJL€Vr], T€T pC
Diospolis: ... A foundation of Osiris and I

the Persians it had thirty-three-thousand a
occupied three thousand seven hundred ar
of four hundred stades.
The figures of 33,030 villages and 7 million inhabitants assigned to Diospolis

(Egyptian Thebes) by Stephanus and Porphyry tally reasonably well with the figures
of over 30,000 villages and cities and about 7 million inhabitants that Diodorus
gives, not for Thebes, but for all of Egypt in the pharaonic period (1.31.7-8).28 The
figure of 100 gates at Thebes is given by Diodorus at 45.6, but he also gives an
alternate version, in which the number comes not from the gates of the city but
from the number of propylaea (1.45.7). The length of the circuit is also given by
Diodorus as 140 stades, not 400. Still, the closeness of these figures does suggest
a common source. Both Porphyry and Stephanus attribute their information to the
otherwise unknown Caton ( Kdrwv ). Jacoby emended K&todv to ! EKaraios on the
basis of his attribution of Book 1 of Diodorus to Hecataeus. But at FGrH 250
F20, Jacoby quotes the same passages and there emends Kdrcav to Kdorwp , whic
would seem to be a more logical emendation than ' EKaraios . These passages ca
hardly be counted as proof that Diodorus draws on Hecataeus for this information
and again point to the existence of other sources that he may have used.29
So it is clear that the fragments of Hecataeus from authors other than Diodorus
provide virtually no support for the argument that Diodorus drew extensively on
Hecataeus, let alone that Book 1 is an 'epitome', as Murray claims. If anything,
the fragments of Hecataeus seem to indicate that Diodorus did not use Hecataeus
in those passages and show the existence of other writers who covered the same
topics. Let us now look at the one fragment of Hecataeus that actually originate
in the first book of Diodorus. This occurs in the historical portion (1.45-68) in
a section on the tombs and monuments around Thebes (1.46-49), particularly the
great tomb of Osymandyas (Ramesses II). In describing the tombs of the city,
Diodorus remarks that the priests give the original number of tombs as 47 accordin
to their records, but that only 15 were left by the time of Ptolemy I and fewer
still at the time of his own visit. Diodorus then adds:
28 Some type of census in Egypt goes back at least as far as the New Kingdom. On the
pharaonic census, see D. Vabelle, 'Les recensements dans l'Egypte pharaonique des troisieme
et deuxieme millenaries', CR1PEL 9 (1987), 33-^9. The date of the first Ptolemaic census is
unknown, but the first documents showing evidence (in the form of receipts for the salt tax) for
the census come from the reign of Ptolemy II. On the nature of the Ptolemaic census and the
ancient evidence for it, see W. Clarysse and D.J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic
Egypt (Cambridge, 2006), esp. 2.10-35. There are some textual problems with this passage of
Diodorus. Diodorus gives the population of Egypt in the pharaonic period as 7 million, and then
under Ptolemy I as 3 million. However, most editors prefer either to delete the second number
entirely or to emend to toutoov. Underlying this change is a desire to bring Diodorus into line
with the figures provided by Josephus, BJ 2.385. For a detailed analysis of Diodorus' figures
and the other evidence for the population of Egypt in this period, see D.W. Rathbone, 'Villages,
land and population in Graeco-Roman Egypt', PCPhS 36 (1990), 103-42, arguing that Diodorus'
figures are preferable to Josephus'.
29 Burton (n. 16), 8, and 126-7 on 31.6 f.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
oi) ji lovov S' ol kclt ' AlyviTTOv Up€is €K to>v avaypa<f>a)v loropovoiv , aAAa
to)v *E''rivu)v r( bv TTapapaXovrcov fxiv €is ras Orjâs ii tl IJToXeâlov
owTai;aiL€V(A)v 8e ras AlyvirriaKas loTopias , cSv €Otl /cat ' EKaratos , ovfx</
vcf>' rjfjLOiv elprj/jievois. (1.46.8)
Not only do the Egyptian priests recount this from

of the Greeks who visited Thebes during the rei
Egyptian histories, including Hecataeus, agree wi
The next passage, a detailed description of th

for some three pages of text, is introduced by
(47.1). This is a clear reference back to Hecata
name in the preceding passage quoted above, a
the bulk of the description of the tomb is d
the end of this description Diodorus remarks
of King Osymandyas' (tov fiev ovv ' Oovfiav
yeveodai <f>aolv, 1.49.6), shifting from the
ning of the account to the third person plura
declares that 'thus Hecataeus is clearly identi
oratio obliqua throughout'. Murray further us
twice over - first because he mentions Hecat
in such a way as to suggest that he was a sub
Diodorus 'gives himself away' by starting wit
Thus, Diodorus is apparently highly deceptive
on Hecataeus but he is so incompetent that th
were so determined to conceal a dependence
reasonably expect that he would never refer t
not be so foolish as to 'give himself away' a
Instead, let us look for more plausible explan
lem. Burton suggests that Diodorus uses the p
common enough in ancient Greek.31 A better
out using Hecataeus as his source for the tom
gressed worked in other sources for addition
which this happens is during the description of
relief depicts Osymandyas in battle accompan
explanations for the meaning of this with a fie
rives 8' loropovv (1.48.1). In order to provide
to be multiple sources to begin with.32 It is p
multiple explanations of the lion relief, but t
section with a plural <f>aotv suggests that it is
use information from another source, as least
much more readily supported by the text than
tried to conceal his use of Hecataeus.
In the controversy over how much of this passage is attributable to Hecataeus,
an important question has been overlooked. Why does Diodorus suddenly feel the
30 Murray (n. 12), 144-5 and 145, n. 1.

31 Burton (n. 16), 6, n. 2.
32 Diodorus cites multiple explanations in a similar fashion elsewhere in Book 1 at 1.25.1,
1.26.7, 1.45.6-7, 1.64.13-14, 1.87.7-8 and 1.97.5. Nowhere else does he imply that these expla-
nations come from a specific source as he does here.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
need to cite Hecataeus here, the only t

section Diodorus implies that he has
himself, but for the region around The
make it as far south as Thebes on his tr
only a few tombs were left in his tim
els €K€ivovs tovs tottovs, 1.46.7) and
However, he also freely admits that m
its monuments is second-hand: TrapeiXi
their records, or via literary sources i
There is a logical explanation for th
had also sharply declined in importan
had already been extensively looted by
Diodorus tells us (1.46.4-5), and during
Upper Egypt area in general were hot
itself was sacked several times during
88 b.c.e. during the reign of Ptolemy
extensive, as Strabo reports that in his
Almost no papyri dating after this de
gests that Thebes had greatly declined
for Diodorus to observe at Thebes to b
Moreover, Ptolemaic authority was w
country.35 That, combined with the
Thebes from Alexandria (about 400 mi
Diodorus made was short. The end result of this would be to force him to fall
back much more heavily on literary sources for Thebes and the surrounding area
than for the monuments he describes in Lower Egypt. So for information on the
state of the city prior to the Persian conquest he relied on the priests, perhaps as
quoted by another author, and then supplemented them with accounts from Greeks
who visited during the early Ptolemaic period, before the sack of 207/206. Far
from being proof of Diodorus' extensive plagiarism of Hecataeus, this passage
might instead be proof that Diodorus wanted to give places he had not examined
personally some proper literary authority. Rather than being typical of his approach
in Book 1, it therefore stands out as rather atypical.
33 Surprisingly, given the amount of scholarship on trying to determine Diodorus' sources,

there does not seem to have ever been a thorough examination of why Diodorus would cite
another historian by name in the Bibliotheke. In Book 1, at least, such citations are very rare,
and the mention of Hecataeus here stands out. Diodorus regularly cites the Egyptians, or the
Egyptian priests, as his sources (1.10.1, 1.24.5, 1.25.2, 1.26.1, 1.26.6, 1.28.1, 1.29.5, 1.43.6,
1.46.7, 1.69.5, etc.) and once cites the Thebans (1.50.1). But the citations of other Greek authors
in Book 1 are very different from this reference to Hecataeus. Diodorus analyses and for the
most part discredits explanations for the flooding of the Nile from a number of different authors
(1.37^41) and elsewhere only mentions an earlier historian to disparage him (Ephorus at 1.9.5,
Herodotus at 1.69.7). On the Herodotus citation, see further below. Attacking one's predecessors
is a common element in ancient historiography - see J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in
Ancient Historiography (Cambridge, 1997), 217-37; and on Diodorus in particular see Sacks
(n. 3) 108-16.
34 On Diodorus' own observations, note for example his remark that the account he gives of
Sesoosis agrees closely with the monuments still extant in Egypt (1.53.1).
35 K. Vandorpe, City of many a gate, harbour for many a rebel: historical and topographical
outline of Greco-Roman Thebes', in S.P. Vleeming (ed), Hundred-Gated Thebes (Leiden, 1995),
203-39, at 232-5.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
To use this passage as a means of attributing other sections of

Hecataeus, as some scholars have attempted, therefore becomes probl
example, Schwartz notes that one of the reliefs in the tomb of Osym
shows the chief justice wearing a figure of Truth (1.48.6). The actual
tice is described a few chapters later, again wearing a figure of Truth
Schwartz takes the coincidence as proving that the latter passage is a
from Hecataeus, and that therefore the entire section on Egyptian custom
91-3) must likewise be derived from Hecataeus since it forms a unified
reference to priestly records at 1.46.7-8 must also derive from Hecata
must every other reference to priestly records in Diodorus, and so on and
But, as Burton points out, there is no reason that whole chapters an
must be attributed to Hecataeus 'on the basis of a single coincidental s
reference'.37 The chief justice (or vizier) was a real and very importan
the ancient Egyptian government. There is no reason to suppose, for ex
Hecataeus was the only author who could have mentioned the chief j
was the highest secular figure in Egyptian government. Indeed, even i
times small lapis lazuli figures of Truth (Maat) have actually been foun
Underlying Schwartz's and other similar arguments is of course the
Diodorus would not have used multiple sources for the first book, a b
impossible to prove satisfactorily without access to Diodorus' source(s) f
son.39 Instead the argument is made by falling back on perceived chara
Diodorus himself. Alan Lloyd claims, for example, that 'Diodorus ... w
man to take more trouble than he had to', and, if a single source we
that covered the material he wished to cover, 'he would have contente
largely with that'.40 This assumes that Diodorus, in spite of spending
years in Egypt exploring the country at least as far south as Thebes a
of his evident fascination with the Egyptians, was so lazy that he was
to go to the trouble of reading another book besides Hecataeus or to e
own observations in the course of composing Book 1. Indeed, at 1.83.8-
describes how he saw an Egyptian mob murder a Roman soldier over t
a cat. Later, at 17.52.6, he cites census figures for the city of Alexandr
his own visit to Egypt ( kclO ' ov yap rjiieis irapefiaXofiev XP°V0V A
36 Schwartz (n. 10), 223-33.

37 Burton (n. 16), 3-4.
38 As the pharaoh's chief administrative deputy, the chief justice or vizier was
for guaranteeing justice and thus helping the pharaoh to preserve 'maat', an Egypt
that encompassed truth, justice and order. For a brief overview of the vizier, se
'Officials'; and, for a more detailed study, see G.F. van den Boorn, The Duties o
Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom (London, 1988). A papyrus text de
vizier can be found in R.O. Faulkner, 'The installation of the vizier', JEA 41 (1
For examples of the statuettes of Maat personified, see Burton (n. 16), 223, n. 1.
39 While older scholars (e.g. Schwartz, Jacoby, Murray) generally accepted the o
one book hypothesis, more recent scholars of Diodorus' methods of composition, w
focus on the later books of the Bibliotheke , sharply dispute whether Diodorus re
one source for any given section or book, or whether he is using multiple sources
overview of the problem from a scholar who argues for Diodorus' usage of multiple
Green (n. 4), 1-34. For evidence of multiple sources in Book 1, see further below
40 A.B. Lloyd, review of Diodorus Siculus Book I. A Commentary , by Anne Burt
(1974), 288.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
suggesting that he must have done som

these two passages stand out is that Di
experience. At the very least, he must
many travellers before and after him had
So much for the actual fragments of
little basis for believing that Diodorus
from him, let alone that Book 1 is an
Murray's second argument for Diodoru
that the narrative of Book 1 dates to the
ficial modification.43 Indeed, Murray goe
Diodorus to modernise this narrative are
even if the narrative of Diodorus Bo
late fourth century, this would not con
Hecataeus. Nevertheless, let us examine
support this claim.
The first supposed anachronism concern
the son of Lagus. This Ptolemy is men
1.31.7, 46.7, 46.8 and 84.8. In each case
(IJroXejjLaLos rov Aayov) and not as k
to indicate that not only was Hecataeus
I, Diodorus' source, but also that Hecatae
Ptolemy declared himself king in 305. 4
is named twice in this book as well, and
At 1.33.11 he is labelled o Sevrepos n
riToXefiaLov rov QiXaSeXtfrov Trpooayo
comes after Hecataeus, this renders the
hand, Ptolemy XII Auletes (r. 80-58) is
and as king (o fiaoiXevs, 1.83.8). Taken t
himself feels no need to refer to a Pto
no qualms in doing so. This is confirme
Ptolemy I in Books 20-22. Ptolemy is f
at 20.27.1, although at that point in th
the title. Diodorus notes at 20.53 that
declared himself to be a king. The next
22 chapters later, does not refer to him
a major figure in the narrative, he is n
at 20.82.3, where Ptolemy's rival Demetr
same passage, is not. In the fragments
as one of a group of kings (21.1.4b), bu
41 Diodorus gives the population of Alexan

racy of this figure, see Rathbone (n. 28), 1
Alexandria', TAPA 118 (1988), 275-92.
42 Marincola (n. 33), 79-86, notes that Greek h
experience unless they wished to give creden
references to the Egyptian priests as sources,
priests seem to have been busy at all times wi
43 Murray (n. 12), 145 and n. 3.
44 Murray (n. 1), 215.
45 Murray (n. 12), 143 and n. 6.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
(22.3.4). Diodorus' inconsistent use of the appellation of fiaoiXevs with

is no proof of his dependence on Hecataeus.
Another apparent anachronism involves some of the dates that Diod
in Book 1. At 1.44.1 he says that the period over which mortals ruled
slightly under 5,000 years, down to the time of Ptolemy XII Auletes
however, Diodorus gives a figure of 4,700 for the years of mortal rul
Murray claims that the difference is that at 1.44.1 Diodorus counts the
of Egyptian rule that come to an end with Amasis at 1.69.6, plus the 1
Persian rule that have a terminus of Alexander's arrival, which Diodor
331 (17.49.1), the chronological marker Hecataeus would have used. M
that 4,895 years is close enough to 5,000 for this to make sense.46 T
with this reading is that in both chapters Diodorus explicitly says for
are included in the figures of 4,700 and 5,000. This would cover the
Persian rule, and Diodorus in fact mentions that the Persian kings are
the 5,000 years noted at 1.44.1. Sacks suggests that the numbers are cl
that we need not be concerned about a contradiction on Diodorus' part
difference between the two figures might be accounted for by Diodoru
include the 276 years of Macedonian rule in the 4,700-year figure at 1.
he explicitly includes in the 5,000-year figure at 1.44.4. This interpret
still be used to argue that Diodorus' source was from the period of Pto
the conquest of Alexander the Great was so momentous as to make a c
chronological marker for any writer on Egypt, not necessarily an early
source.48 Diodorus may have erred in not including the Macedonian pe
figure at 1.69.6, but he has good company among other historians w
have been less than accurate at times.49
Murray claims a few other passages in Diodorus as indicative of an early
Ptolemaic source.50 At 1.31.6-8 Diodorus describes the coast of Egypt without
mentioning Alexandria, although he notes its harbour of Pharos, which was known
to the Greeks at least as far back as Homer ( Odyssey 4.357). Since, however,
Diodorus' Egyptian account is of the country before the Macedonian conquest,
this is not too surprising. Moreover, Alexandria was certainly a going concern by
the time Hecataeus was writing so, even if it could be shown that this passage
was drawn from Hecataeus, the absence of Alexandria would still require some
explanation. Diodorus himself states at 1.50.7 that the foundation and description
of Alexandria is not suitable for the first book, and promises to describe it in its
proper chronological place, which he does in Book 17.
Another potential anachronism concerns the Apis bull. Diodorus says at 1.84.8
that an Apis bull died after the death of Alexander the Great and shortly before
Ptolemy son of Lagus took over Egypt. Murray claims that this must be the last
event recorded by Hecataeus, and that the passage in Diodorus 'ought to suggest
46 Murray (n. 12), 145, n. 3. Note that Murray adds 195 to 4,700 and comes up with 4,945,
which is incorrect.
47 Sacks (n. 3), 92.
48 Burton (n. 16), 6, n. 2.
49 Cf. Herodotus 1 .32, where his calculations of the number of days in a human life yields
a 375-day year, and n. 25 above. On ancient writers and their preferences for round numbers
note C. Rubincam, 'Numbers in Greek Poetry and historiography: quantifying Fehling', CQ 53
(2003), 448-63.
50 M. Stern and O. Murray, 'Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians',
JEA 59 (1973), 165.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
that no later Apis bull had yet died wh

Diodorus is not giving a chronology of
event to demonstrate how devout the E
there is absolutely no reason for Diodo
Diodorus explains that the keeper of the
erly that he spent not only a huge sum
of silver from Ptolemy himself. This w
Ptolemy I to gain Egyptian support ear
that Diodorus should choose it as an exa
to honour their animals.52
Another aspect of Diodorus' account th
Hellenistic context is his description of
this section Diodorus emphasizes how iso
Egypt is (1.30.1). Murray interprets this
the beginning of the wars of the Diado
ring to the breakup of Alexander's empi
8e c/)VGLKfj Kal /caAAet xcopas ovk o
a(f)copi(j[jL€V(ov tottojv (1.30.1), which M
by a long way in natural strength and fe
kingdoms' (emphasis in original). While
to render the Greek, and in particular
to encompass the act of regions breakin
whole.53 In addition, it is also doubtfu
perfectly isolated. He seized the importan
Antigonus Monophthalmos, then regain
continue to be a point of contention bet
As Shipley remarks, this struggle to h
views Egypt as a self-contained geograp
It seems doubtful, then, that this passa
Ptolemaic viewpoint, even at the very st
Another aspect of Hecataeus' work from
context is the blending of Greek and Eg
work envisages a 'deeper fusion of Gree
to the opening of Ptolemy's reign when h
Ultimately, this did not occur once Ptol
lished and the Egyptians were firmly und
Egyptian is actually more suitable to the
is writing. The last few Ptolemies relied f
particular on priestly support, for the cr
51 Murray (n. 12), 143 and 145, n. 3.

52 The Ptolemies regularly favoured the Egy
rule in Egypt. See G. Holbl, A History of the
Ptolemy I's policies.
53 Murray (n. 12), 148. I read d</>ajpicrju,€Wv
translation as 'in natural strength and beauty
small degree all other regions that have been f
account of the formation of the first races of
54 G. Shipley, The Greek World After Alexan
5.34, which makes the same point.
55 Murray (n. 12), 166-7.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
XII Auletes, the ruler when Diodorus was in the country, was particula
with the Egyptian priestly caste.56 This suggests that this aspect of the w
have more to do with Diodorus than with his presumptive sources.
More intriguing is Diodorus' section on the spread of Egyptian cultur
colonization (1.29-30). Diodorus limits himself to discussing Egypt's
colonization of Athens, but also remarks that the Egyptians claim to h
forth many other colonies without offering any proof (1.29.5-6). Murr
correctly says that Diodorus must be abbreviating a much fuller account
on to claim that this account must have been part of early Ptolemaic pro
claiming Egypt as the source for all other civilizations.57 This is an int
hypothesis, but sadly there is no evidence to support it other than the ass
that Diodorus' narrative comes from the early Ptolemaic period. And, to
the evidence for that is non-existent.
Murray's third argument is that the ethnography of Egypt has the same type
of structure as the ethnographies of the Jews and Hyperboreans that are attrib-
uted to Hecataeus by name. But this argument is already problematic because the
ethnographies of the Hyperboreans (2.47) and Jews (40.3) are both preserved by
Diodorus. It is not possible to separate out how much of the similarities are due
to a common source and how much are the result of Diodorus' own concerns and
interests when he adapts them to his own narrative.
Diodorus' description of the Jews does seem to have something in common with
the Egyptian narrative. Moses is portrayed as a great leader, who founds many
cities and establishes the Jewish forms of worship (40.3.3). Osiris is portrayed as
accomplishing similar things in Book 1. Moses also establishes a priestly caste
to head the country, with whichever priest is regarded as the best as the leader
(40.3.4-5). The Egyptians have a king, but Diodorus does emphasize the impor-
tance of the priests as advisors (1.73.2-5). Moses also established laws requiring
young men to be virtuous and fit, so as to always be ready for warfare (40.7), and
Diodorus describes the Egyptian warrior caste in some detail (1.73.7-9). Finally,
Moses established marriage and burial customs that were quite different from those
of other people. The trouble is that these are all very generic traits - Moses and
Osiris both fit the pattern of heroic city-founders, while the idea of a priestly
caste leading the state contains echoes of Plato, and the warrior caste echoes the
Spartans. Such details do not constitute positive proof that, because the Jewish
ethnography is drawn from Hecataeus, the Egyptian ethnography must be as well,
and certainly not when we consider that they may reflect the interests and ideals
of Diodorus more than the sources he is adapting.
In the case of the Hyperboreans, I simply do not see any details or a struc-
ture that seems specifically to recall either the Egyptian or Jewish ethnographies.
Indeed, the account of the Hyperboreans lacks the major features of these, most
prominently a culture-bringer such as Osiris or Moses to establish the rules of
worship and the laws of humankind and to found cities. Only one Hyperborean is
mentioned by name - Abaris. Abaris visited Greece to make votive offerings and
renew the friendship of the Hyperboreans and Delians (2.47.3), but this is in no
way comparable to Diodorus' account of Osiris spreading civilization throughout
the world (1.18-20).
56 Holbl (n. 52), 222-3, 271-85, 289-90.

57 Murray (n. 12), 145-7, 152.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
This brings us to Murray's final argu

1 is a unified one, with an internally c
recur or are echoed at various points i
on Hecataeus' work wholesale and not
his own observations.58 It is worth no
contradictions in Book 1, which Burton
are really just alternate versions. At
Thebes (or Diospolis) but at 1.45.4 it i
with this is that Diodorus explicitly ack
his sources about who actually found
versions.
Another contradiction that Burton identifies concerns the builder of the Egyptian
Labyrinth. At 1.61.1, in his historical narrative of Egypt, Diodorus names the
builder of the labyrinth as Mendes, but notes that some call him Marrus. However,
in the course of his description of Egyptian animal worship, he mentions the
labyrinth again (1.89.3) and attributes its construction to an early king named
Menas (already mentioned at 1.45.1). Finally, at 1.97.5, Diodorus again attributes
the labyrinth to Mendes or Marrus, but here considers them to be separate kings
rather than alternate names for the same king. Linguistically, Menas, Mendes and
Marrus seem to be variants on the same Egyptian name,60 but Diodorus is appar-
ently unaware of this. Burton feels that Diodorus is contradicting himself when
he names Menas as the first mortal king of Egypt at 1.45.1, Mendes or Marrus
as a later king of Egypt at 1.61.1, and then both Mendes and Marrus as possible
builders of the labyrinth at 1.97.5. I believe that the situation is more complicated
and indicates that Diodorus is collating at least three sources.
There is no question that Diodorus understands that Menas is a separate figure
from Mendes or Marrus - the two are described in different sections of the histori-
cal narrative, with different achievements. This indicates that his attribution of the
labyrinth to Menas at 1.89.3 came from a second source. In discussing the builder
of the labyrinth in chapter 61, Diodorus names the builder as Mendes, but adds
that some call him Marrus (rtvc? Mappov Trpooovofjidôvoiv , 1.61.1). This means
that either Diodorus was working from a single source that identified the king with
multiple names, or he was working from two sources and recognized that Mendes
and Marrus must be one and the same. If he was working from only one source
at 1.61.1, then he must have used a different source at 1.97.5, one that identified
the builder of the labyrinth by only one name. Diodorus remembered the earlier
passage, but forgot that his earlier source had used both names to identify the same
king, causing him to offer the names as those of two separate kings. Alternatively,
if Diodorus was collating two or more different sources at 1.61.1, then he must
have forgotten that he had recognized Mendes and Marrus as one and the same
king by the time he wrote 1.97.5. Either possibility indicates a grand total of at
least three sources involved in naming the builder of the labyrinth.
These contradictions are so few in number that they appear to be the excep-
tion rather than the rule. They are perhaps indicative that the text of Book 1 as
we have it did not received a final edit in which Diodorus would have smoothed
58 Murray (n. 12), 144-5.

59 Burton (n. 16), 2-3, 33.
60 J. Vergote, 'Le roi Moiris-Mares', ZAS 87 (1962), 66-76.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
these problems out.61 Otherwise Book 1 is marked by a high degree of

overall, indicative of a single author, as Murray says. But this in no way c
proof that the author was Hecataeus. Indeed, it is difficult to think
ancient author besides Diodorus who could produce a narrative and have
consistency be taken as proof that said author was not responsible for
Attempting to prove that Diodorus used only a single source based
stylistic consistency of a particular passage or book is in fact futile. J
in an exhaustive analysis of the language and style of the Bibliotheke,
that Diodorus is actually quite consistent stylistically throughout the e
making any argument on the grounds of style untenable.62 Or, as Brunt
his study of historical fragments, 'Diodorus himself wrote throughout
smooth style ... to which no doubt ... the survival of so much of [his
can be ascribed.'63 More recently, Brian Bosworth has argued that secon
historians such as Diodorus can quite extensively reinterpret their sour
'Reportage and opinion are selected, adapted, and woven together in a
with a different emphasis.'64 Diodorus' consistency thus cannot be in
what Hecataeus may have believed, even if it could be firmly establi
Hecataeus was Diodorus' main source for Book 1.
It is worth briefly considering whether any other authors are credible candidates
for being one of Diodorus' sources for Book 1. We have already noted the fragment
of the mysterious Caton above, but there are a few other places where there is a
good overlap between Diodorus and another author. For example, Diodorus claims
at 1.82.3 that Egyptian doctors had to follow treatments laid down in written law
There is no evidence for this as an actual Egyptian practice, but Aristotle ( Politics
1286a) makes the same statement, the only other ancient author to do so.
Even better is the account of Prometheus preserved in the Scholiast on
Apollonius Rhodius 2.1248 and attributed to Agroitas:
AypoLTas iv rfj i y to>v Al^vkcjv henrveiodai to fjirap TJpofxrjdews 8o£ at vrro

tov aerov 8ia to Trjv KpaTiorrjv tov npofirjOeajs x^pav tov iroTafxov tov KaXov/xevov
Actov (f>deip€iv, fjirap 8e irapa 7toXXols ttjv evKapirov Xeyeodai yrjv- ' HpaKXeovs Si
i£ox€T€vaavTOS hioipvî tov TroTafxov, tov t€ aeTOV hoâi vit ' a vtov K€x<*>ptcrOai /cat
tov npofxrjdea XeXvodai tcov Seofxcov. ( FGrH 762 F4a)
Agroitas says in the 13th book of his On Libya that the story that the liver of Pro
was eaten by an eagle came about because Prometheus' excellent land was destr
a river called Eagle, and 'liver' is said by many to mean 'fruitful earth'. Since
drew off the river with canals, the 'eagle' seemed to have been removed by hi
Prometheus freed from his bonds.
This agrees closely with the account in Diodorus, in which Prometheus is a gover-
nor in Egypt whose land is devastated by the flooded Nile, which is turned back
only through the efforts of Heracles (1.19.1-4). Diodorus also claims that the story
of the eagle came from an alternate name of the Nile. This account of Prometheus
61 Green (n. 4), 8-9, suggests that the Bibliotheke may never have been fully revised.
62 J. Palm, Uber Sprache una Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien (Lund, 1955).
63 Brunt (n. 22), 478.
64 A. Brian Bosworth, 'Plus 9a change ancient historians and their sources', ClAnt 22
(2004), 167-97, at 195.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
iscompletely different from that norm

only in Diodorus and this quotation of
Unfortunately, next to nothing is kn
Diodorus and his rationalizing approa
middle or late Hellenistic period.66 It is
and Diodorus used Hecataeus for this
Hecataeus, and then Diodorus used Ag
Two other passages in Diodorus, 4.26.2
of Agroitas cited by the Scholiast on
very likely that Agroitas was used ind
There are also a few passages in Di
surviving fragments of Manetho. At
Egypt say that some of the gods who
However, according to Diodorus, some
Instead, they argued that in the earlie
yet been recognized and a year was in
a year by ancient standards would be
This same explanation is given in Man
elsewhere.
There is also some similarity between Manetho F83 and Diodorus 1.12-13 on the
lesser gods of Egypt, who both authors say are associated with the five elements of
spirit, fire, water, earth and air. Indeed, Eusebius, from whom F83 is drawn, remarks
that 'Manetho writes about these things at great length, and Diodorus concisely'
(ypd(f>€i 8e kolI ra 7T€pl tovtcov irXarvrepov fjuev o Mavedojs , iTnreTfxrjpievws
Se o Aiohwpos, Eusebius Praep. Evang. 3.2, 87d), so the ancients were aware of
this similarity too.68 Unfortunately, it is not possible to go farther than this and
Diodorus clearly did not use Manetho 's chronology of the Egyptian dynasties.
It is, at the very least, telling that of the five passages that have the closest
counterparts in Diodorus, none comes from Hecataeus, and only one comes from a
well-known author, Aristotle. The complete obscurity of both Agroitas and Castor/
Caton strongly suggests that Diodorus may have dug far deeper into the available
material than he is given credit for by those who feel that he is a 'mere epitomizer'
too lazy to read more than a single book on a subject, and that his smooth prose
style may hide a far greater number of sources than is commonly supposed.
This leaves Herodotus, the most famous of all the Greek historians of Egypt. It
is often asserted that Diodorus did not read Herodotus at all.69 The historical section
of Diodorus clearly owes a great deal to Herodotus, and repeats many of the older
historian's mistakes, such as the dating of the pyramid-builders. Nevertheless, since
there are enough differences in details, especially names, to show that Herodotus
could not have been the only source,70 and since Diodorus has normally been
65 Burton (n. 16), 11-12.

66 M.F. Williams, 'Agroitas (762)', in I. Worthington (ed.) Brill's New Jacoby (Leiden, 2007);
RE , s.v. Agroitas; Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Agroitas.
67 This is the conclusion of Williams (n. 66), the most recent editor of Agroitas. She also
argues that Diodorus 3.60.2, 4.27.2^4- and 4.56.6 derive from Agroitas as well.
68 Burton (n. 16), 12-13.
69 e.g. O. Murray, 'Herodotus and Hellenistic culture', CQ 22 (1972), 200-13, at 210.
70 Both Diodorus (1.63^1) and Herodotus (2.124-34) place the pyramid-builders among the
pharaohs of the new kingdom, when in fact they were much earlier. Diodorus names the first
two as Chemmis and Cephren, while Herodotus calls them Cheops and Chephren. They agree

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
assumed to use only one source at a time, Murray and other scholars t
indicate that Diodorus only came to Herodotus indirectly through Hec
This does not seem at all probable.71 Murray himself has shown that
was very widely read during the Hellenistic period and was, along with
the classic example of Greek historiography.72 Diodorus refers to He
name four times in the first book. The first, from the section normally
to Agatharchides, describes the earlier historian as 'curious for knowledge
was, and very experienced in history' (o TroXvTTpaypLwv , el Kal tis
iroXkfjs laroplas efju-rreipos, 1.37.4). If anything, this remark is complime
though Diodorus is explaining that Herodotus is incorrect in his theori
Nile. Similarly, Diodorus' next two mentions of Herodotus are fairly neu
rebuttals based on better knowledge and autopsy of the earlier histori
about the Nile (1.37.11, 1.38.8). The final reference is negative. Introd
section on Egyptian customs, Diodorus complains that 'Herodotus and ce
ers on Egyptian matters deliberately preferred the telling of fantastic
myths for sheer amusement to the truth' (' Hpohoros Kal rives tcov ras A
7Tpd£eis avvraâfjuevcov iax^SiaKaoLV, €kovgIo)s TrpoKplvavres rrjs a
7Tapa8o£oXoy€iv Kal puvOovs TrXarreiv i/jvxayojylas eveKa , 1.69.7
also two passages in the historical narrative where Diodorus criticize
authorities for explanations based on divine vengeance and oracle fulfilme
1.66.10), explanations that are given by Herodotus (2.111, 2.151).
Taken together, these statements seem to indicate that Diodorus had
attitude towards Herodotus and that he recognized the achievement of
historian while rejecting the more romantic and fanciful elements of h
is very significant that at no time does Diodorus embark on any sort
polemic against Herodotus. Denouncing the earlier historian seems to
a regular feature of Herodotus' successors, who needed to justify their
ments of the same subject matter.73 Given that Hecataeus was the firs
produce an account of Egypt to rival Herodotus, it is very likely that
considerable effort to attacking Herodotus in order to burnish his own
Diodorus' failure to attack Herodotus repeatedly by name strongly sug
even if Hecataeus was the main source for Book 1, Diodorus has drasti
down his polemic against Herodotus. Such toning down requires that D
familiar with the earlier historian, and presumably used him in conju
other sources. Beyond that, it is impossible to say more with certainty
However, it is clear that the evidence for Hecataeus as Diodorus' mai
for Book 1, let alone the only one, is essentially non-existent. The fra
Hecataeus from other authors offer no support for this attribution, and,
that the name of the third was Mycerinus, although Diodorus gives Mencherinus a
tive. See also Burton (n. 16), 25-9.
71 Green (n. 4), 25, n. 129, remarks: The onus is on those who wish to prove t
had not read [Herodotus], rather than that he had.'
72 Murray (n. 69), 200-4. Murray's more detailed arguments about how Hellen
were influenced by Herodotus must be approached with care, as they are largely d
the belief that Diodorus Book 1 is an accurate reflection of Hecataeus. On Herodotus in the
Hellenistic period, see also K.-A. Riemann, 'Das Herodoteische Geschichtswerk in der Antike
(Diss., Munich University, 1967), 47-69.
73 Murray (n. 69), 205. The most notable piece of ancient evidence for polemic against
Herodotus comes from Josephus, Con. Ap. 1.16, 'everyone refutes Herodotus'. On polemic in
ancient historiography in general, see Marincola (n. 33), 218-37.

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00
seen, the one fragment that does com

This makes using Diodorus' first book
philosophy a hopeless endeavour.
It is unfortunate that this article has
Diodorus' sources for Book 1, but, wh
world, it is important that we do no
about what has been lost. There is, h
we cannot use Diodorus here to recons
offer a basis for better understandin
place in first-century thought.
University of CHARLES E. MUNTZ

Arkansas
cmuntz@uark. edu

128.90.135.38 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:30:37 +00:00

The Sources of Diodorus Siculus, Book 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sources of Diodorus Siculus, Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE SOURCES OF DIODORUS SICULUS, BOOK 1

Author(s): CHARLES E. MUNTZ

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301555

This content downloaded from